Revelations and genuine investigations into the alleged mass doping in Chinese swimming were not to be expected from the Swiss Eric Cottier. His assignment was limited to two questions, the answers to which were clear from the outset.
Eric Cottier may be a sincere person who takes his job seriously – but let's not kid ourselves: here he is just one piece of the puzzle in the big game. An object, so to speak, with a special role that is reliably fulfilled.
All reports and claims that Cottier acted as an independent prosecutor are simply false. Just read and don't talk rubbish:
Cottier was not acting as a prosecutor in this case. Can he seriously be described as independent? There are reasonable doubts as Craig Lord described not only once:
Craig Lord
You have to constantly counter this propaganda of independent investigations, because that is part of the big game in Lausanne and the surrounding area: spending a hell of money on lawyers and other types who deliver the desired results in very limited assignments – which in turn confirm to their clients that they have done everything right. In the meantime, a veritable industry has developed, with the same people who rarely achieve anything outstanding. Incidentally, this also applies to Richard McLaren and his investigators, in some cases – but that's for another time.
So these were the tasks that Cottier was given by WADA:
- Is there any indication of bias towards China, undue interference or other impropriety in WADA's assessment of the decision by CHINADA not to bring forward anti-doping rule violations against the 23 Chinese swimmers?
- Based on a review of the case file related to the decision by CHINADA not to bring forward anti-doping rule violations against the 23 Chinese swimmers, as well as any other elements that WADA had at its disposal, was the decision by WADA not to challenge on appeal the contamination scenario put forward by CHINADA a reasonable one?
And these are, unsurprisingly, Cottier's claims, some may call it findings:
